
19^ 



SPEECH 



OF 



HON. J. A. PEAECE, OF MARYLAND, 



ON THE 



PRESENTATIOxV OF A MEDAL TO COMMODORE PAULDING: 



DELIVERED 



IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JANUARY 28, 1858. 



WASHINGTON: 
PRINTED AT THE OFFICE OF THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBg. 

1858. 



^ 5" 



SPEECH. 



The Senntc, as in Oonimittee of the Whole, resumed the 
cniisirieratioti of the joint resohition (S.No.7) directing the 
jircsentation of a medal to Commodore Hiram Paulding; the 
jiending question being on the amendment of Mr. Brown. 

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. President, among tlie 
strange things to which I listened during the de- 
bate on this question, nothing surprised me more 
than the pertinacity with which it was denied that 
this was a military expedition by General William 
Walker. That denial has been repeated so often, 
and in the face of such testimony, that I cannot 
but call to mind a little work published by Arch- 
bishop Whateiy, entitled " Historic doubts rel' 
ative to Napoleon Bonaparte;" a work in which 
that learned and ingenious prelate lias adduced a 
variety of arguments founded on the rules of evi- 
dence, to show the improbability of the historic 
statements we have concerning the remarkable 
incidents in the history of that extraordinary man, 
nnd even of his existence. It is a facetious rebuke 
of those skeptical minds who are so hardened in 
iticrcdulity that they reject ail historic statements, 
however founded on evidence, which has met the 
almost universal credit of mankind. As a speci- 
men of it, let me read a short passage: 

" But what shall we say to the testimony of those who 
went to Plymouth on purpose, and saw Bonaparte with 
their own eyes.' Must they not trust their senses? I would 
not disparage either the eye-sight or the veracity of these 
gtnllemen. I am ready to allow that they went to Plymouth 
for the purpose of seeing Bonaparte ; nay, more, that they 
aetually rowed out into the harbor in a boat, and came 
alongside of a man-of-war, on wliose deck tliey saw a man 
in a cocked hat, who, Ihcif iverc toU, was Bonaparte. This 
is the utmost point to which their testimony goes; howtlK^y 
ascertained thattliis man in the cocked hathad gone through 
all the marvelous and romantic adventures with which we 
lin.ve so long been amused, we are not told. Did they pcr- 



j ceive in liis physiognomy his true name, and aulhciilic his- 
tory ?" 

It really seems to me that the denial that this 
expedition of William Walker was a military ex- 
pedition, to say nothing now of its being in contra- 
vention of our law, evidences just as much of this 
hardened incredulity as the Archbishop's work 
exhibits in regard to the romantic history, and 
even the existence, of Napoleon Bonaparte. It 
is very true, sir, that General Walker issued no 
proclamation to the wide world, and all mankind, 
beside, announcing his purpose to set forth on 
this expedition to conquer Nicarsigua; he did not 
in New Orleans or Mobile send out his herald;? 
with trumpets to announce his purpose; but short 
of that, we have almost all the evidence which it 
is possible to require. We have in the papers 
furnished to us the proof that his agents were 
busy in various places engaging men; not, it is 
true, to take part in a militar}'- expedition, but to 
go out with him for the purpose of settlement; 
that being the flimsy pretext under which his hos- 
tile operations were disguised. But we are told 
that they were organized by liaving officers aji- 
pointed; that such and such men were promised 
captain's commissions, or the next commission 
in rank. As for those who were to hold no com- 
missions, they were not called pri\ates,but" oth- 
ers than officers." 

Then we find a steamboat obtaining a clearance 
at the custom-house by false and fraudulent rep- 
resentations — for this transaction is stamped with 
the meanness of falsehood in the very beginning; 
false invoices; false letters to a consignee, direct- 
ing the sale of goods never put on board nor in- 

j tended to be put on board, for casli, v/hen they 



should arrive at San Juan dc Nicaragua; passen- J cannot, at all events, affect us in the considera- 



gers to go who were found with arms in their 
Lands. The purpose is disclosed by the very first : 
operation exhibited on reaching the coast of Nic- j 
aragua: a detachment of men, commanded by a , 
colonel and subordinate officers, were sent up the j 
south branch of the river, not to make a peaceful 
settlement, but to force a passage to Fort Castillo , 
and capture it by military means; the vessel then ■ 
running up to the harbor of San Juan, landing not 
onlfT its men, but arms; depositing its ammuni- 
tion,and forming a camp. No such goods as con- 
stituted the assorted cargo are found on board. 
Eut we have an inventory of the cases and their 
contents. This assorted cargo, to be sold for cask, 
consisted of muskets, bayonets, rifles, and per- 
cussion-caps— all the ammunition and all the pro- 
vision intended for a warlike expedition, and 
nothing which could give color to the false letter 
of consign Bsent. 

Then w€ are told that this is no proof of a mil- 
itary enterprise. But General William "Walker 
has avowed it himself, a hundred times over. In 
every speech he has made, in every letter he has 
written, he avowed his purpose to be to reconquer 
power in Nicaragua by the sword, and to main- 
tain it by the same means. 

We may be told, perhaps, that this subject has 
been referred to the judicial authorities; that a 
grand jury has ignored a bill against him, and 
that a judge has quashed some sort of a proceed- 
ino-. I do not know that very great importance 
is due to the decision of a grand jury of which 
ve know nothing but that they have written " ig- 
iioramus" on a certain piece of paper sent to them 
by the district attorney. Whether they had all ; 
the evidence before them which we have, whether [ 
they had any evidence at all before them, we do 
r.otknow. All we know is that they have writ- 
ten *^ignoramus" on the back of an indictment. 
Unless I could be satisfied by personal knowledge 
that the persons composing that grand jury were | 
men of great weight of character and cultivated ; 
iiitelligence, or that they had not ail the eridente i 
before them, 1 should be very apt to think that i 
in writing the word ^'ignoramus'' on the back of i 
the indictment, they were only subscribing a 
nomeiigeneralissimum which would describe them- 
selves. As to the decision of the judge, it is not 
every jud^e who is a jurist. I admit, however, 
that all the judicial effect due to his decision, is 
to be allowed in this case as in others, but no 
r.iore. It has no control over the minds and 
opinions of men. Just so much authority is due 
to his decision, as springs from the force of the 
reasoning or the weight of the cases cited. It 



tion of this question, as it cannot affect the de- 
cision of the Executive, which was made before 
the judicial investigation was held. 

Nothing surprises me more than the sympathy 
which is expressed for General Walker in certain 
parts of the United States. To what qualities of 
his, to what part of his history is this sympa- 
thy due } He is a military adventurer, of a stout 
and courageous spirit, I admit; but what else ? 
There is no evidence of skillful conduct in any- 
thing that he has ever done. All his efforts at 
military adventure have been failures, and al- 
though he professes that his failures have been 
due to the interference of the authority of this 
Government, we know very well that in regard to 
the first one the failure was as complete as it was 
ridiculous. I speak of his expedition to Sonora. 
The failure of the second, which he professes to 
have been occasioned by United States interfer- 
ence, was the result of his folly in usurping power 
and his subsequent abuse of power. It was his 
recldess ambition; liis disregard of the true prin- 
ciples of republican government which made that 
experiment so complete a failure, placing him in 
a position of extreme distress and peril, from 
which, indeed , nothing but the humane interposi- 
tion of Commander Davis rescued him. 

I cannot see how any man who loves freedom, 
regulated by law and accompanied by order, who 
regards national obligation, and what is due to 
municipal regulation and statute — 1 do not for 
my life perceive how such a man can entertain any 
sympathy for this General Walker. He has de- 
veloped his designs clearly enough for us all to 
understand; clearly enough for him who runs to 
read. He acquired power in Nicaragua by the 
use of the bayonets of his army — not by the free, 
unawed vote of the people of that country. He 
used his power to oppress and to injure the peo- 
ple over whom he exercised it. I believe that no 
legislative body ever sat in Nicaragua during the 
whole time of his presidency. Everything was 
done by imperial decree. There was no such thing 
as representative, responsiblegovernment. It was 
a despotism that prevailed while he was the Pres- 
ident of Nicaragua, which mocked at popular 
rights and otncial responsibility. Is such a man 
entitled to our sympathies? Have we ceased to 
admire our own institutions.' Is it following our 
example to establish all power in the bands of 
one man, and that man a foreign adventurer, who 
has acquired it by means of the bayonets of for- 
eigners whom he took with him, or who have 
gone to his aid ? Does it excite our admiration 
that he burned villages; that churches wereplun- 



<lered while he was director, and that the inhab- 
itants suffered confiscation and pillage ? No, sir; 
none of these things excite my sympathy, and I 
■do not believe that they excite the sympathy of 
the great mass of our countrymen. In a few lo- 
calities where, from peculiar circumstances, these 
sympathies have been awakened, he may be re- 
garded as a hero^ but the larger part of our coun- 
trymen view him as an offender against our laws, 
a violator of tl>e laws of nations, and a cold, re- 
lentless oppressor of the people whom he ruled 
with military rigor. 

Besides, are his designs friendly to this coun- 
try .' I say they are not, as he himself has avowed 
them. They are no more friendly to the United 
States than they are friendly to liberty. His ob- 
ject has been one of conquest and of despotism. 
He has sought, not a free Government like ours, 
based upon the people's choice, and regulated by 
sound, popular sentiment, but he has sought the 
establishment of a military despotism in that 
country, and a military despotism antagonistic 
to this country and its institutions. I have here 
General Walker's letter addressed to General De 
Goicouria, from which I propose to read: 

" Granada, .iugust 12, 1856. 

" My DEAR Genkral : I sent your credentials, for Great 
nritain, by General Cazeneam They are ample, and will 
be, I hope, not without result. If you eanopcu negotiations 
with England, and secure for Nicarajjua the port of San 
Juan Del Norte, you will eflect a great ohject. It will be a 
long step towards our end. Without San .luan Del Norte 
we laek, what will be in the end, indispensable to us — a 
naval force in the Caribbean sea. The commercial conse- 
<]u.enccs of this possession are nothing in comparison with 
the naval and political results. 

" With your versatility and (if I may use the term) adapt- 
ability, I expect much to be done in England. You can do 
more than any American could possibly accomplish, be- 
cause you can make the British Cabinet see thai we are not 
engaged in any scheme for annexation. You can make 
iheni see that the only way to cut the expanding and expan- 
sive democracy of the North, is by a powerl'ul and compact 
southern federation, based 011 militarrj jirincrples." 

So it is not the love of liberty, it is not a desire 
to establish law and the reign of peace, and the 
equal administration of justice in Nicaragua, 
which has prompted the adventurer, but a desire 
to establish a government " based on military 
principles," such a government as would excite 
the detestation of the Senator from Georgia, [Mr. 
Toombs,] who has painted to us this morning 
so brilliantly, the dangers of a standing army, the 
dangersof a system based on military principles; 
indeed its utter antagonism to anything like free 
institutions. 

Well, sir, I remember to have seen, in a speech 
lately delivered by General Walker, in Richmond, 



the avowal that the Americanization of Central 
America is to be effected by the sword, and by tb.c 
sword only. That is the power upon which he 
relies to Aniericaniz(! this quondam Spanish ter- 
ritory, and to maintain the government which he 
proposes to institute there. 

The truth is, Mr. President, that this General 
Walker is an ambitious dreamer. The enterprise 
which he has undertaken is one that does not 
belong to the age, and is not in accordance with 
its spirit. It is one that goes far back in its spirit 
and design, to ages which I trusted liad passed 
away forever. It belongs rather to that dark 
period in the Christian era, when the hordes of bar- 
barians from the northern hive, swarmed out and 
came in legions upon the fairest portions of south- 
ern and westei-n Europe. It belongs rather to 
that still later period when the Vikings and North- 
men went wherever they could, disregarding the 
obligations of national justice, making might right, 
and carrying rapacity and rapine wherever they 
went. That is the age to which an expedition of 
this character belongs. 

I stated, upon a former occasion, when I ad- 
dressed the Senate, that expeditions of this char- 
acter were contrary to the recognized laws of 
nations — laws about which there is no dispute. 
Every one acknowledges the obligation of a na- 
tion at peace with another, not to allow that peace 
to be violated by its own citizens. Every one ac- 
knowledges that the obligations of the nation aro 
the obligations of all the citizens, and of each and 
every one of them. All acknowledge, too, that. 
private war is not justifiable in any sense; that 
it is expressly forbidden by the laws of nations; 
and it is no defense of such an expedition as this 
to say that the parties engaged in it have a right 
to expatriate themselves. 

The right of expatriation is not an absolute and 

perfect right. It is not so pretended to be by any 

publicist. It is a qualified right; it is subject to 

various exceptions, and to any legislation which 

a State may think proper to adopt in regard to it. 

I presume that no one would contend that the 

right of e:>i^atriation was an absolute right when 

a nation was engaged in war, and needed all iVi 

citizens or subjects to defend it. That man who 

should run away from his country, and throw off 

his allegiance, under such circumstances, would 

j not only be a renegade, but a traitor. We can- 

1 not assert the absolute right of expatriation in 

j regard to such a man. Indeed, sir, in our own 

I history, we have one very striking instance in re- 

; gard to this right of expatriation. I think it was 

' in 1810 that Elijah Clark, a citizen of New Jersey, 

[ went from that State to Canada, where he mar- 



6 



lied, and had children. He was said also to have ^ | informed tliat, altliougli we had great cause of complahii 
ciccepted a commission in the Canada militia; and ' ! against Spain, and even of war, yet, wlienevcr we sliouUi 

, , „ Toit-> u i,„ „.,t Un ,„-- I : thihk proper to act as her enemy, it should be openly ami 

then when the war of 1812 broke out, he was.i '^ J '] ^ ' 

,. 1 1 above-board, and that our hostility should never be exer- 
found, after having crossed the river, in oar lines ' ^.^^^^ ,,y ^_^^,^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^ "^^^j ^^ suspieion that he 

lurking about the American camp. Ho was taken , ! expected to eii^m^e men here, but merely to purchase mili- 
np by the military authorities, tried by court-mar- j| tary stores. Against this there was nolaw,norcon.seqiienily 
tial, and condemned as a spy; but Mr. Madison ! any airihority for ua to interpose obstacles." * 
interfered. He directed him to be discharged, 
and to be turned over to the civil authorities to 
be tried for treason. He did not admit the expa- 
triation of Elijah Clark, in that case. j 
Neither can it be anything but bona fide expa- i 
triation to which we can allow any weight. Such 
a pretext cannot be set up when the object is to ; 
violate the laws of nations, or to violate the stat- I 



'• Although his measures were many days in preparation in 
iVew York, we never had the least intimation or suspicion 
of liis engaging men in liis enterprise until lie was gone," 
***<*" until it was too late for any measures 
taken at Washington to prevent their departure. The officer 
in the customs who participated in this transaction with 
Miranda we immediately removed, and should have had 
him, and others, further punished, had it not been for tin; 
protection given tlicni by private citizens at iVew York, in 
opposition to the Government , who. by their impudent false- 



Utes of the country, to evade the laws passed to N hoods and calumnie.o, were able to overbear the minds of 
enforce neutral obligations, and to disturb the : j t'>e jurors. Be assured, sir, that no motive could induce 

1 •. !• 1 :.i, ..,i.„.^ ,„„ o-o I "IP, at 'f'i'' time, to make this declaration so gratuitously, 

peace and security of a people with whom we are ! ' ' ,,,.,, r t, 

' 1 ■ n^i ]• ■ I Were It not founded in sacred trijth ; and I Will add, further, 

on terms of peace and amity, lliesc expeditions A^^^^ , never did, or countenanced, in public life, a single 
have always been regarded with singular disfavor : ;,c, inconsistent with the strictest gnod faith ; having never 
by the Government of this country. I am proud believed there was one code of nwrality for a public antl 
to say that the United States, although suspicions \ , another for a private man." 

have been cast on her integrity in this regard, ;{ Under the administration of Mr. Monroe, we 
have uniformly manifested a sound and true public amended the statute of neutrality passed in 1794, 
faith. No expedition ha.s ever been got up in this by the act of 1818, which was only an enlarge- 
country without receiving the denunciation of the j| ment, to some degree, of the former act intended 
Executive and the general disapprobation of the ij to prohibit these private enterprises of a warlike 
citizens. General Washington, even before the [j nature. I believe there,has not been an occasion 
statutes of neutrality were pas.-'cd, which I believe j| of that sort during our history, when the Presi- 
wasin 1794, issued hisproclamation, based onthc Ijclent for the time, being, whoever he might be, 
principles of international law, prohibiting our !j has not entertained and expressed opinions like 
people from engaging unjustly in the struggles of ,! those expressed by Mr. Jefferson in the letter 
the great nations who were then in flagrant war, j| from which 1 have read. I have here a letter of 
wliich threatened to involve us also. At a later j General Jackson, showing what he thought of 
period of our history, when Miranda came here, ijsucii expeditious, even anticipating one which 

I think in IBOG, or 1807, or thereabouts, and or- jj he apprehended was on foot. This letter was ad- 
ganized his unfortunate expedition against Ven- J dressed to William S. Fulton, then Secretary for 

ezuela, it met with no favor at the hands of our ^i the Territory of Arkansas, and dated December 

authorities, either executive or judicial. 

The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Toombs] re- 
minds me that the individuals who were tried in 

New York were acquitted. Tliat is true; but let 

us hear what the President said on that subject. 

Mr. Jetferson, after the clo.sc of his administra- 
tion, wrote on this subject, on the 4lh of October, 

1809 — it is to.be found in a letter to Foronda — as 

follows: 

'•Your piedscessnr, soured on a question of etiquette 

.igainst the Administration of ili^s country, wished to impute 

wrong to them in all their actions, even where he did not 

believe it himself. In this spirit, he wished it to be believed 

tliat we were in unjustitiabli; cooperation in Miranda's ex- 

[)editioa. I solemnly, and on my per^ollal trutli and honor, 

declare to you that this was entirely witiiout foundation, 

and that there was neither cooperation nor connivance on 

our part. He informed us he was about to attempt the lib- 

iiation of his native country from bondage, and intimated 

a hope of our aid, or connivance, at least. He was at once 



10, 1830: 

" Dear Sir : It has been stated to me that an extensive 
expedition against Texas is organizing in the United States, 
with a view to the establishment of an independent govern- 
ment in that province, and that General Houston is to be at 
the head of it. From all the circumstances communicated 
to me upon this subject, and which have fallen under my 
observation, I am induced to believe, and hope (notwith- 
standing the circumstantial mannerin which it is related to 
n>e) that the information I have received is erroneous; and 
it is uunecessiuy that I should add my sincere wish that it 
may be so. No movements -hav; been made, nor have any 
facts been established, which would require or would jus- 
tify the adoption of olScial firoceedings agtiinst individuals 
implicated ; yet so strong is the detestation of the criminal 
steps alluded to, and such artf my apprehensions of the ex- 
teik to which the peace and honor of the country might be 
compromitted by it, as to make me anxious to do everything 
short of it which may serve to elicit the trutli, and to fur- 
nish me with the necessary facts (if they exist) to lay the 
foundation of further measures." 



I am glad to say tliat the gallant old general 
was mistaken in his suspicions; that such were 
not the purposes of the Senator from Texas, whom 
1 now see before me, and I know lliat President 
Jackson received from him assurances that he 
entertained no such purposes. He did head, gal- 
lantly head, the revolution which made Texas an 
independent State; but it was not until the over- 
throw of the Mexican constitution, and the vio- 
lation of the rights of the State of Trxas, that her | 
people took the last resort into their own hands, j 
This, at all events, shows conclusively what was 
General Jackson's opinion, although I believe it 
was not altogether unfashionable at one time to 
suspect him of being somewhat of a fillibuster 
himself. 

It has, however, been attempted to be shown 
that this expedition stands on a different footing 
iVom any other hostilities which have been sought 
to be carried on from this country against a foreign 
country. It has been endeavored to be shown 
that, inasmuch as there were two parties in Nic- 
aragua, it was perfectly fair, according to the law 
of nations, that Mr. Walker should engage his 
.service to one of those parties in conflict with 
the other. I deny that entirely. When rebellion 
arises, we do not think it civil war; but when it 
has acquired such head, and the parties are so 
equally balanced that it can be characterized as 
civil war, then the rule is that both parties are to 
be treated as if tlicy %\ere independent nations at 
war; and the obligation of our citizens, as well 
as of our Government, is to regard the laws of 
neutrality, and not to take sides with either party. 
This obligation is just as perfect as if there were 
two independent nations engaged in lawful open 
war. In general, neither the Government nor the 
citizens of a neutral nation can, without a depart- 
ure from their neutrality, take any part in such 
it conflict. It is true there are some extraordinary 
exceptional cases, as when a revolt has begun in 
consequence of inhuman oppression, such asjus- 
tifiedlhe people of Holland in rising against the 
Government of Spain, in which other nations 
may and sometimes have taken part. The con- 
sequence of their doing so, however, always is a 
rupture of their peaceful relations wiih the coun- 
try against which they have taken part. If not 
an act of war, it always leads to it. It did so in 
our own case during the war of the Revolution. 
It always must do so where there is suflicient 
power in the State which is thus opposed by hos- 
tile interference, to revenge or redress the griev- 
ance. 

Now, sir, I propose to show by a very few cita- 



tions, that what I have said is justified by the 
publicists. Chancellor Kent says: 

"It is sometimes a vnry grave question, wlion and liow 
far one nation has a riglit to assist tile subjects of auotlier, 
{ wlio liave revolted, and iniplornd that assistance. It is said 
tliat assistance ma}' lie aflfordcd, consistently with the law 
! of nations, in extreme case's, as wlien rulers have violated 
! the principles of the social compact, and given just cause to 
j their subjects to consider themselves discharged from their 
. allegiance." — Kent-s Commentaries, volume 1, p. 2t. 

I In a note, he quotes with approbation a letter 
I of Mr. Webster to Lord Ashburton, dated April 
J21, 1841, in which Mr. Webster said that— 

"It was a manifest and gross impropriety for individuals 
i to engage in the civil conflicts of other States, and thus to be 
' at war, while their Govc-rnmont i j at peace ;" and that \' the 
salutary doctrine of non-intervention by one nation with thi' 
|] affairs of others, is liable to be essentially impaired, if, wliilw 
i| the Goverinnent refrains from interference, interference is 
|! still allowed to its subjects individually or in masses;" and 
i I that " the United States have been the first among civilized 
ii nations to enforce the observance of the just rule of nen- 
;: trality and peace, by special and adequate legal enactments 
i '■ against allowing individuals to make war on their own au- 
thority, or to mingle themselves in the belligerent oper.itions 
'<'. of other nfttions." 
!| 

Chancellor Kent himself observes: 

i '• Prior to the recognition of the independence of any of 
j the Spanish colonies in America, and during the existence 
j ' of the civil war between Spain and her colonies, it was tlie 
I declared policy of the Government of the United States, in 
recognizing the independ(uice of the Spanish American 
[l Republics, to remain neutral, and to allow to each of the 
;! belligerent parties the same rights of asylum and liospiul- 
j ity, and to consider them, in respect to the neutral relation 
;j and duties of the United Slates, as equally entitled to the 
sovereign rights of war as against each other. Tliis wan 
1 also the judicial doctrine of the Supreme Court, derived 
! from the policy of the Government, and seems to have been 
I regarded as a principle of international law." 

! The poliay and principle of the Government 
were laid down to the same effect by General 
Jackson in his message to Congress, December 
21, 183G. 

Vattel says, that, " even in lawful war between 

two nations, private expeditions are not lawful 

\ unless authorized by the civil authority." This 

I every one knows by our ordinary experience. 

Even if this country were at war with Great Brit- 

• ain — public, lawful war — it would not be com- 

i petent for individuals to arm private vessels and 

I send them out to cruise against the commerce of 

I the enemy unless they had a coiTimission from the 

j Governntient. If they were to cruise against Brit- 

i ish vessels without suchacommission,andshould 

: be taken by a British man-of-war, they would be 

! entitled to none of the privileges of prisoners of 

war, but would be regarded as freebooters, and 



8 



treated pretty much according to pleasure. Vattcl 
declares: 

" The necessity of a special order to act is so thoroughly 
established, that, even after a declaration of war between 
two nations, if the peasants of themselves commit any 
hostilities, the enemy shows them no mercy, but hangs 
them up as he would so many robbers or banditti. The 
crews of private ships of war stand in the same predicament ; 
a commission from their sovereign or admiral can alone, in 
ease they are captured, insure them such treatment as is 
given to prisoners taken in regular warfare." 

On every score, then, this carrying on of war 
by private adventurers against another State, es- 
pecially when it is at peace with that country to 
which they belong, is an offense of the highest 
character against the laws of nations. Against 
their own Government it is just such an offense as 
the laws make it. I hold, therefore, that General 
Walker and his associates, although only guilty 
of a misdemeanor against the laws of the United 
States were, as regards Nicaragua, in no better 
condition than freebooters and pirates — they were 
waging war against that State and people, with- 
out any authority. 

Now, sir, I turn to the act of 1818, chapter 
eighty-eight. That act was passed by this Gov- 
ernment for the purpose of enforcing these very 
obligations. It contains a variety of provisions 
applying to different cases; and if the last clause 
of that act were struck out of it entirely, there 
would be penalties and prohibitions for every one 
of the offenses specified in the act, and authority 
to the Executive to use the military and naval 
force of the country to enforce such prohibitions 
and penalties. There are seven sections preceding 
the eighth. The first provides fine and imprison- 
ment for exercising within the United States a 
commission to serve a foreign State. The sec- 
ond section imposes a penalty on any person for, 
within the jurisdiction of the United States, en- 
listing, or procuring others to enlist, in the service 
of a foreign State. The third section imposes a 
penalty for fitting out vessels for such services; 
the fourth for citizens fitting out or arming. The 
fifth section imposes fine and imprisonment for 
augmenting within the jurisdiction of the United 
. States the force of foreign armed vessels. The 
sixth provides fine and imprisonment for any per- 
son or persons setting on foot within the jurisdic- 
tion of the United States any military expedition 
against a friendly Power. The seventh section 
gives cognizance to the district courts of com- 
plaints in all cases of capture made within the 
waters of the United States, or one marine league 
of the coast; and the eighth section, if the last 
clause of it were left out, would provide for the 



enforcement of the prohibitions and penalties con- 
tained in the preceding seventh section, by means 
of the exercise of the military and naval power 
of the United States. It is something else that is 
described in this last clause, and tl^t something 
else is this: it is to give power to the President 
" to prevent the carrying on of any such expe- 
dition or enterprise from the territories or juris- 
diction of the United States, against the territories 
or dominions of any foreign prince or State, dis- 
trict, colony, or people with whom the United 
States are at peace." Without this last clause 
the President would have been fully empowered 
within the territorial jurisdiction of the United 
States to use all the military and naval forces ti> 
suppress here such expeditions. It would have 
been useless, therefore, to insert that additional 
clause in the section if it were not intended for 
another purpose. 

That other purpose is sufficiently disclosed by 
its language. A different meaning from that which 
I supposed to belong to it has been given by in- 
terpreting, the word "prevent" to signify to anti- 
cipate. But that is not the usual meaning of the 
word "prevent." In the course of time it has 
changed its original signification, and now means 
to hinder or obstruct, or rather something stronger 
than either of these words. Crabbe, in his syn- 
onyms, says it used to signify the doing that 
which makes the purpose prevented impractica- 
ble. 

The power, then, of the President under the last 
clause of the eighth section of this act, is to em- 
ploy the naval and military forces of the United 
States so as to make the military expedition car- 
ried on from the United States impracticable. 

It is to put at the control of the President, and 
within his discretion, the military and naval forces 
of the United States, to prevent the carrying on 
from the shores of the United States of any such 
military expedition; not to stop it here in limine; 
not merely to enforce the prohibitions and pen- 
alties provided in the other sections; but some- 
thing more than that, which something more can 
be nothing else than to pursue such an expedition 
after it has left our limits, and seize it wherever 
it may be found, unless there be some intervening 
authority to interrupt the President's proceedings. 

I know that reliance has been placed very much 
on the right of emigration. Mr. Webster's au- 
thority has been very frequently invoked on it; 
his correspondence with Mr. Bocanegra has been 
cited ; but Mr. Webster himself has furnished the 
evidences of his opinion in regard to the opera- 
tion of this act. I read from a debate in this House 



9 



in 1850, when this very question was made. It 
was asked by what authority the President of 
the United States had used our armed vessels to 
cruise on the coast of Cuba to anticipate the Lopez 
expedition. Mr. Webster said: 

" But iioft' let us come to the direct question. VVh.Tt is 
it that is 8orapIained of .' It is said that the I'njsidont of the 
(Jnited States has directed a portion of tlie naval armament 
of the country to the coast of Cuba, for a certain specific 
purpose ; and if the facts are as they are generally believed 
to be, for a purpose not only perfectly legal and perfectly 
constitutional, to be executed on the part of the Executive 
of the Government, but a purpose made his especial duty 
by a positive statute. If there is any case, it is a case of 
this kind. A military expedition has been fitted out, or be- 
gun to be fitted out, in the ITnited States, to act against the 
Island of Cuba, now belonging to the Spanish Government ; 
and it is not material, if such be the fact, if it be fitted out, 
or begun to be fitted out or prepared, according to the lan- 
guage of the statute, in the United States, whether by the j 
citizens of the United States or by others. The law pre 
vents the thing being done in the United States. Now, I 
suppose that whatever action the President has taken on 
this subject is founded upon information that this is a mil- 
itary expedition prepared and set on foot in the United 
Stales, in whole or in part. Well, then, if tliat be so, the 
law makes it his express duty, wherever he can exert tlie 
military and naval power within the limits and jurisdiction 
of the United States, to exert it to defeat such an cxpedi- i 
tion. And in the next place, if a United States vessel is 
found on the coast of Cuba intending to violate this law of 
the country by helping to carry on a military expedition 
against Cuba, that vessel is just as much within the juris- 
diction of the United States— for that is the word of the 
statute— as if she lay in the Potomac river." 

Gentlemen seem to have confounded two very 
distinct powers of this Government. The first is 
the sovereign exclusive territorial authority which 
every nation possesses over its own territories, 1 
and extending over the waters beyond its shores 
to the distance of three miles. That is the gen- 1 
eral rule now of the publicists; though,, in ancient i 
times, the claim went to a much larger extent — as 1 
much as two hundred miles, as Hautefeuille tells ' 
us, and he assigns a peculiar reason for that claim: j 
in ancient days, fillibuster expeditions were so | 
common and so injurious that the older nations ; 
sought the protection of exclusive jurisdiction ' 
over the sea to a greater extent beyond their 
coasts, that they might be better able to secure 
themselves from such expeditions. This has 
come now to be three miles from shore. But the 
exclusive sovereign jurisdiction of a nation over 
its territory, which ceases within three miles of 
its shores, is a very different thing from that juris- 
diction which they have on the high seas — not 
over the high seas, to be sure, but on the high 
seas, over their citizens, their vessels, and their 
property, wherever they may be afloat. Indeed, 
the publicists say that the flag continues the coun- 
try. Wherever a vessel of the United States is 



borne on water, there is the United States. In» 
deed, how could it be otherwise; since, if it were 
not, there would be no power in any Government 
to punish for crimes committed on the high seas. 
If there were no jurisdiction in every nation over 
its citizens or subjects, their vessels and property 
afloat on the high seas, no crime committed there 
could be punished. The worst malefactors at sea 
would be beyond any jurisdiction, and even piracy 
itself would have uninterrupted immunity from 
the penalties of criminal law. 

But we know, sir, that our statutes have pro- 
vided for the punishment of all crimes committed 
on the high seas; and we have gone even further 
than that: we have a statute on our book — that 
of 1825 — which punishes crimes committed on 
board our vessels within ports of foreign nations. 
We are not limited to the high seas. The juris- 
diction of the United States attaches so completely 
to its vessels wherever they are water-borne, that 
even if a murder be committed in the port of Liv- 
erpool, the man may be tried in the courts of the 
United States, and may be hung for it. It is true, 
that there is there a conflict of jurisdiction, that the 
territorial jurisdiction of Great Britain attaches 
also, and that if her courts take cognizance of the 
case in the first instance, our jurisdiction must 
cease. That is provided for in the act; but if they 
fail to take cognizance of the crime committed on 
board a vessel of the United States within one of 
their ports, then our jurisdiction attaches; and on 
the return of the party to the United States, he 
may be tried and punished for his offense. If it 
were not that we have jurisdiction far beyond our 
territory, not limited by the lines of our land or 
three miles of water which bound our coast, how 
is it possible we could punish men for crimes 
committed on the high seas, or within the ports 
of a foreign nation.' No law that we pass here 
gives any jurisdiction to the Government. No 
law that we pass here gives any authority to the 
law-making power. The law we pass providing 
for the punishment of people in these cases gives 
authority to the courts. It gives jurisdiction to 
your criminal tribunals; but the jurisdictional 
right of the sovereign power cannot be affected 
by any act of your legislation. So that I think I 
am warranted in saying that there is a jurisdic- 
tion all over the high seas, and wherever your 
vessels are water-borne; and I am not sure that 
it cannot be carried further still. I think it can 
be shown that there is a sort of jurisdiction too, 
even upon the land which belongs to a foreign 
nation, other than that of such nation. 

We have on our statute-book a law which pro- 
vides for the punishment of offenses committed 



10 



by citizens of the United States within the limits 
of China and Turkey. They are tried by the 
courts of those countries, — and I speak now of 
offenses not committed on the high seas or on 
board a vessel lying in port, but offenses commit- 
ted within the strictly territorial limits and on the 
very land of China and of Turkey. By what 
right can you punish these people in such cases as 
that, if your jurisdiction is limited to your own 
territory and to the high seas ? Sir, if your juris- 
diction does not extend beyond them, then when 
you punish a homicide under the judgment of 
your consular and commissioner's courts where 
the offense is committed in Cliina, you commit 
judicial murder. Gentlemen may say we have a 
treaty with China, and that treaty with China con- 
fers on us the power. Sir, no treaty with any 
nation on the face of the earth can enlarge the 
powers of this Government; they may cede ter- 
ritory; they may yield up their own prerogatives; 
they may abandon their own territorial rights; 
they may say "this exclusive territorial jurisdic- 
tion which we have, we will waive and allow you 
to exercise yours within our limits;" but they 
cannot confer a right on the Government of the 
United States which the people of the United 
States have not conferred on us, or which does 
not spring necessarily and inevitably from the 
relation of Government and citizen. 

Now, sir, I do not speak this purely from my 
own suggestion. I have at least one authority 
among the publicists — 1 have not had time to in- 
vestigate this question, or I should have found 
more, no doubt; but in a volume which was one 
of the text-books of my school-boy days, I have 
seen this authority: 

'' The jurisdiction which a civil society has over the per- 
sons of its members affects them immediately, whether 
they are witliiii its territories or not." 

This is from Rutherford's Institutes, and is 
quoted with approbation by Judge Marshall in 
Lis celebrated speech on the Jonathan Robins 
cose. I cannot conceive any other principle on 
which we can vindicate the law we passed under 
the authority of the treaty with China, than this 
principle of natural law which I have quoted from 
Rutherford. If we have not a jurisdiction which 
attaches to the members of our civil community 
wheresoever they are, I do not know how it is 
possible for us, whatever may be the terms of a 
treaty with Cliina, or the terms of the law we 
passed, to punish a man for a crime committed 
without our territorial limits, beyond the high 
seas, and beyond the ports where our flag floats, 
and within a jurisdiction which is entirely foreign 
to us. 



If anybody can point out to me any other source 
of authority for the passage of such a statute as 
this than the one I have cited, I shall be very 
mucli obliged to him. I admit I should have 
broached this idea with a great deal of timidity if 
it had not been fortified by the authority I find in 
Rutherford; but it is very clear to me thttt all the 
treaty with China can effect is a waiver of her 
right to exclusive territorial jurisdiction. She 
certainly could not confer on the Congress of the 
United States the power to pass that act; but if 
that act is valid, if it is not unconstitutional, if it 
is not a violation of the principles of our Govern- 
ment, it must be because our Government has 
a sort of personal jurisdiction over its citizens 
wherever they are. I think something of the same 
sort will be found in Bowyer's late work on inter- 
national law; but I have not had time to examine 
it with a view to this point. 

Now, sir, I say that the act of 1R18 imposes on 
restrictions or limitations on the President in re- 
gard to the power conferred by the eighth section. 
That power was unnecessary to effect the prohi- 
bitions and penalties of the other sections of the 
act within the limits of the United States. Indeed, 
without the authority which is given in the earlier 
part of the section to use the naval and military 
forces to enforce the penalties and prohibitions of 
the act, I take it, that in the ordinary course of 
judicial proceeding, the military authority might 
have been so invoked. I do not mean that the 
President of the United States might have been 
directly called on to do it; but if the mandate of 
the court was not obeyed, the posse comilatus might 
have been called out, and the military and naval 
forces as a part of it. From the fact of conferring 
the special power on the President, it is evident 
that there was a design to go much farther than 
the limits of the territorial jurisdiction of the 
United States. And do we not know that our 
naval forces are used abroad everywhere as the 
police of the seas.' Somebody asked me if I had 
ever known the case of a statute giving authority 
to go beyond the three marine miles from the 
coast, except in regard to the revenue laws.' Sir, 
that provision in the revenue laws which allows 
cutters to board vessels within four Jeagues of 
your coast, is a limitation on your power, not an 
extension of it. If we had not a jurisdictional 
right beyond the three miles, no act of Congress 
could give it. Congress itself cannot increase its 
own powers, and j^et that is the idea implied by 
the question which was asked me. Its powers 
are above itself. They come from the people 
through the instrumentality of the Constitution; 
and whatever we enact must be in subordination 



11 



to the Constitution and the powers conferred by 
tlic people through it. 

I say then tliat the power conferred on the 
President by the last ckiuse of the cighlh sec- 
tion of the act is not limited to the jurisdictional 
bounds of the United States territory; and if not 
limited there how is it limited, and by wiiat? No 
limitation is found in the act, and there is none in 
the reason of tilings, except that in the exercise 
of the power thus conferred, the President sliall 
take care not to violate the jurisdictional sover- 
eignty of another State. That I admit. Unless 
that jurisdictional sovereignty of the other State 
has been waived, I suppose it would be ordinarily 
a violation of the territory of that State for forces 
to be landed there, and the capture of persons 
in the condition of General Walker, eilected. But 
there are peculiar circumstances in regard to this 
capture of General Walker which vary the case. 

In the first place. General Walker landed on 
Punta Arenas, asand-spit, within thejurisdiction- 
al limits of Nicaragua, as our Government con- 
tends, though we all know that Costa Rica has 
claimed that territory for herself; and we know, 
too, that Costa Rican troops were in possession 
of it for some months prior to this advent of Gen- 
eral Walker, and only left it a short time before 
lie arrived there; and left it, I believe, in conse- 
quence of their apprehension of his»landing with 
his fillibusters. At the time when Walker arrived 
there it was derelict. At all events, at that mo- 
ment Nicaragua had neither actual occupancy, nor 
constructive occupancy, nor potential occupancy, 
if 1 may use that term. She had no functionaries 
tliere; she had no troops there; she had no means 
to maintain her authority; she was ousted of her 
authority; and if she was not ousted of her au- 
thority before Walker got there, she was ousted 
of it by him. It was no longer within her pos- 
session. Her rule was not there. Her flag did 
not float there to protect or to punish. Our mil- 
itary force went there — for what purpose.' To do 
her an injury.' No, sir. They went there as her 
ally; they went there to.her aid; they came to her 
assistance. Ithas been maintained by pretty high 
authority that there is no such violation of terri- 
tory by the landing of forces, when their landing 
is not for a hostile, but for a friendly purpose, 
and to protect the nation on whose territory they 
landed from the incursions of those who, as to 
them, were to be considered as freebooters and 
pirates. What was the doctrine of the United 
States when our squadron was scouring the West 
Indiaseastoputdown the piracies which prevailed 
there in 1823? Judge Thompson, who was then 
Secretary of the Navy, instructed Commodore 



Porter on that subject, and I beg leave to read his 
instructions: 

"Pirates are considered, by the law of nations, the enemies 
01' the human nice. It is the duty ol" all nations to put them 
down; and none who respect their own character or in- 
terest will refuse to do it, much less afford them an asylum 
and protection. The nation that makes tlie greatest exer- 
tions to suppress such handitti has the greatest merit. In 
making such exertions it has a risjht to the aid of every 
other Power, to the extent of its means, and to the enjoy- 
ment, under its sanction, of all its rights in the pursuit of the 
object. 

" In the case of belligerents, where the army of one party 
enters the territory of a neutral Power, the army of the other 
j i has a right to follow it there. In the case of pirates, the right 
of the armed force of one Power to follow them into the ter- 
ritory of another, is more complete. In regard to pirates, 
there is no neutral party, they being the enemies of the 
human race ; all nations are parties against them, and may 
be considered as allies. The object and intention of our 
Government is, to respect the feelings as well as the right.s 
of others, both in substance and in form, in all the me.as- 
ures which may be adopted to accomplish the end in view. 
Should, tiicrefore, the crews of any vessels which you have 
seen engaged in actsof piracy, or which you have just cause 
to suspect of being of that character, retreat into the ports, 
harbors, or settled parts of the island, you may enter, in pur- 
suit of them, such ports, harbors, and settled parts of the 
country, for the purpose of aiding the local authorities, or 
people, as the ease may he, to seize and bring the ortenders 
to justice, previously giving notice that this is your sole ob- 
ject. 

" Where a Government e.vists, and is felt, you will, in 
all instances, respect the local authorities, and only act in 
aid of and cooperation with them ; it being the exclusive 
purpose of the United States to suppress piracy, an object 
in which all nations are equally interested ; and in the ac- 
complishment of which the Spanish authorities and people 
will, it is presumed, cordially cooperate with you. If, in 
the pursuit of pirates found at sea, they shall retreat into 
the unsettled parts of the islands, or foreign territory, you 
are at liberty to pursue them, so long only as there is rea- 
sonable prospect of being able to apprehend them ; and in 
no case are you at liberty to pursue and apprehend any one, 
after having been forbidden so to do by competent author- 
ity of the local government. And should you, on such 
pursuit, apprehend any pirates on land, you will deliver 
them over to the proper authority, to be dealt with accord- 
ing to law ; and you will furnish such evidence as shall bo 
in your power to prove the ofl'ense alleged against them. 
Should the local authorities refuse to receive and prosecute 
such persons so apprehended, on your furnishing them with 
reasonable evidence of their guilt, you will keep them, 
safely and securely, on board some of the vessels under 
j your command, and report, without delay, to this Depart- 
ment, the particular circumstances of such cases." 

i The idea of the Secretary of the Navy in that 
j dispatch was, that, inasmuch as pirates were not 
1 only enemies of the United States, but of Spain, 
j in pursuing them upon the shores of the Spanish 
islands we were acting as allies of Spain itself, 
j or at least with no hostile intent to her, with no 
I idea of violating her territorial sovereignty, and 
{ therefore we might, in pursuit of them, lawfully 



V' 



12 



penetrate within the jurisdictional limits of the 
Spanish Crown, provided no objection was made 
by the Government of Spain, or the local author- 
ities. That seems to me to be very similar to this 
case. 

Here we had Mr. Yrissari before he was re- 
ceived as the Minster of Nicaragua, but while he 
was in communication with this Government, and 
under the authority of his Government accredited 
to this, addressing a letter to the Secretary of State 
announcing the fact that Walker was about to 
carry on such an expedition, and asking the in- 
terference of this Government, by means of its 

naval forces in the harbor of San Juan, to repel I 

h 

this incursion -.and in fact Yrissari was recognized h 

. . I 

before Commodore Paulding made this descent! 

on Punta Arenas. We have no separate treaty ij 
of amity with Nicaragua, I believe; but we had 
one with Central America when she was part of 
that confederacy-; and the provisions of that treaty 
still subsist, notwithstanding the separation. We 
are under a pledge of friendship and amity to Nic- 
aragua. That people, through their accredited 
agent, asked our interference at this very point, 
requesting us to put down this expedition by the 
use of our naval forces in the harbor of San Juan; 
and what we have done is precisely what they 
asked us to do. I admit, readily, that Commo- 
dore Paulding was without express instructions 
from the Navy Department to land. Indeed, I 
do not know that he had any other instructions 
than the general instructions contained in the cir- 
cular of the State Department — rather insufficient, 
I think, for the circumstances; but Lieutenant 
Almy had direct instructions from the Navy De- 
partment to repel by force any vessel bringing a 
hostile expedition into the port of San Juan, and 
I believe he was directed to proceed to other points 
to watch out, to look for these invaders, so as to 
repel them. This implied a violation of the ter- 
ritorial sovereignty of Nicaragua quite as much 
as the landing of Commodore Paulding on the 
sand-spitof PuntaArenas, because the portof San 
Juan is as completely within the jurisdiction of 
Nicaragua as Punta Arenas, and a shot could not 
be fired in the port without violating the territorial 
right, unless that territorial right could be con- 
sidered as waived. 

Under the circumstances of this case, consider- 
ing the application made by the minister, the re- 
peated solicitations which have been addressed 
to this Government by the authorities of that, to 
protect them from such expeditions, I think we 
are fairly entitled to consider their territorial sov- 
ereignty as waived, and ourselves as permitted 
to use force within their territorial limits for the 



purpose of repelling such incursions. We were 
fully entitled so to regard it, and so we were in 
the case of Commodore Porter and the Spanish 
West India islands. Therefore, when Commodore 
Paulding landed, although he went further than 
any orders of his Government authorized him to 
go, he was only carrying out the purpose of the 
Government; he was only executing its just and 
lawful objects; he was only doing that which a 
high regard for national law required us to author- 
ize him to do; and in my opinion, if he has com- 
mitted any error at all, it is not a very " grave" 
error. It is the merest fractional error that it is 
possible for a naval man to commit under such 
circumstances. I admit that technically you may 
say he had no right to do this, because he iiad no 
orders to do it; but I rather think theexpression 
of " grave error" attributed to him by the Pres- 
ident in his message, is more the result of the 
President's great caution — a somewhat distinctive 
feature in his character — than anything like a de- 
liberate design to censure Commodore Paulding. 
I am very sure he entertains no such design; and 
if he does not publicly say so, I have no doubt that 
privately he is gratified that Paulding has taken 
this short cut to the settlement of a very difficult 
matter. 

The other day, when this subject was up, the 
honorable Seftator from Mississippi [Mr. Brown] 
alluded to the case of Commodore Porter, and con- 
trasted it with the treatment which Commodore 
Paulding was receiving. He seemed to think it 
was a similar case in all respects. While I think 
the case of the pirates which he was authorized 
to pursue into the interior of the Spanish Isles 
very much like the authority implied to Commo- 
dore Paulding to land at Punta Arenas and cap- 
ture the fillibusters there, and who, as to Nicara- 
gua, were pirates, though not such as to us, I 
believe there is a great difference between the case 
under which Commodore Porter was tried and the 
case forwhich it is now proposed tocensure Com- 
modore Paulding. Commodore Porter visited tlie 
town of Foxardo, not in pursuit of pirates, but 
to avenge an insult to a lieutenant of his squadron 
who had gone to that town some ti)ne previously 
for the purpose of looking up goods supposed to 
have been taken by pirates from Saint Thomas 
and lodged there. When he arrived there, he was 
treated with indignity by the local authorities, 
and put into prison until the close of the day. He 
then repaired to the vessel of Commodore Porter 
and stated his wrongs. 

The commodore, burning with resentment at 
this mal-treatment of one of his lieutenants, pro- 
ceeded to the bay of Foxardo, landed a force, 



13 



found a battery placed there, as if in opposition 
to him, went around the battery, charged it in the 
rear, tooif the guns, spiked them, then marched 
a force of two hundred men two miles from the 
coast, spiking other guns as he went along; and 
finally came to a halt two hundred and fifty or 
three hundred yards from the town; sentaflag of 
truce in to the alcalde; notified him that if he did 
not make the most ample reparation and apology 
the consequence would be the destruction of his 
town; then compelled an ajiology, and returned 
to his ships. That was his case. That was not 
a case of aiding and assisting the Government of 
S])ain in the pursuit of i>irates who had made a 
retreat to that place. It was the case of a direct 
act of war, initiated by a captain in the Navy, of 
his own authority, for the purpose of redressing an 
insult offered to one of his lieutenants. The cases 
cannot be compared at all. Captain Porter was a 
very gallant man. There were many people who 
disapproved of his conduct on that occasion, but 
regretted to find that he was suspended from the 
Navy, and ultimately he resigned his commission ; 
but the cases are not in the least parallel. 

I come now to the continuation of the remarks 
1 was making a short time since as to the opera- 
tion andextentof Uie power conferred on the Pres- 
ident by the last clause of the act of 1818. Sup- 
pose that the President, having given instructions 
to his naval commanders to pursue an expedition 
of this sort, they should pursue them, chase them 
on the high seas, until they arrive at an island in 
the neighborhood of their operations, not within 
the jurisdiction of any Power at all: does any 
one suppose that if the pirates, thus pursued, 
sliould land on this unclaimed island the authority 
of the naval forces of the United States to cap- 
ture them would be at an end? I apprehend not. 
I apprehend that wherever they could find those 
men they would have a right to seize them if they 
did not violate the territorial sovereignty of some 
other Power. Unless there is some particular 
sanctity about a mere spot of land not covered 
with water, I apprehend the authority given by 
this act would not be checked in that case. 

But, sir, the conduct of our own Government in 
other cases lias evinced a disposition to carry the 
authority of the United States under this law still 
further, to an extent perhaps to which I could not 
even go myself, though with some qualification I 
might be able to do so. I have referred to the cor- 
respondence between a former Mexican Minister 
to this country, and one of the most accomplished 
debaters who was ever heard in these Halls, a 
statesman of very considerable acuteness and abil- 
ity — I mean Mr. Forsyth, when he wa.s Secre- 



tary of State under General Jackson. In 1836, 
soon after the revolution in Texas commenced, 
our Department of State was flooded with remon- 
strances from the Mexican Minister, and com- 
plaints made that our people were getting up par- 
ties for the purpose of going into Texas and aiding 
in the war; that companies were organizing at 
Nashville and other places. Mr. Forsyth prompt- 
ly furnished the instructions given to our district 
attorneys and other officers to suppress all such 
movements. In addition to that, Mr. Gorostiza 
complained that General Jackson had given orders 
to General Gaines in command of the Army at 
that quarter, to advance as far as Nacogdoches, 
which was then in Texas, claimed by Mexico, 
some thirty miles, I believe, beyond our then 
limits. Mr. Forsyth replied to Mr. Gorostiza that 
he had somewhat mistaken the purport of the 
order to General Gaines; that General Gaines had 
not been ordered to carry the military forces of 
the United States as far as Nacogdoches, but that 
he had been told he must not go any further than 
that point, implying necessarily that under cer- 
tain circumstances he might advance as far as 
Nacogdoches. Mr. Forsyth justified this order 
to General Gaines to carry the troops of the Uni- 
ted States into the Territories then claimed by 
Mexico, not as a hostile movement, but as a 
friendly one, as fulfilling treaties of amity and 
peace; " treaty obligations," I think he says; but 
at that time there was no treaty with Mexico, ex- 
cept that of 1831. By that treaty, in the ordinary 
form, we stipulated that there should be perpetual 
and inviolate peace between the United States of 
America and the Republic of Mexico and be- 
tween all the citizens of the one and the citizens 
of the other. This was the formal article found 
in all the treaties of peace and amity. There was 
a special provision that the United States should 
guard Mexico from the irruptions of our Indians; 
and Mr. Forsyth justified the implied order to 
General Gaines to advance as far as Nacogdoches, 
on the ground that the United States, as a friend- 
ly nation, was bound by its treaty stipulations as 
well as by the laws of nations to protect its 
friends from the incursion of hostiles who were 
within the limits of the United States, and that 
it had the right to follow those hostiles into 
the territory of Mexico, and even, he says, to 
the very heart of the Empire. Here is his lan- 
guage: 

" To effect one of these great objects for wliicli General 
Gaines is sent to the frontier of Mexico, that is to fultill our 
treaty with Mexico by protecting its territory against the 
Indians within the United States, the troops of the United 
States might justly be sent into the heart of Mexico, and 
their presence, instead of being complained of, would be the 



14 



strongest evidence of fidelity to engagements and friend- 
ship to Mexico." 

The whole correspondence is to be found in the 
Congressional Globe and Appendix for 1835-36. 
I should question very much the right of our 
Government to dispatch troops, even for that pur- 
]iose, without the consent of the party whose ter- 
ritory was to be entered on; but at all events tliis 
authority is enough to show that it is not the first 
time in the history of our Government that troops 
have been sent into the jurisdictional limits of 
another State, for the purpose of repressing in- 
cursions by American citizens; and the authority 
and right to do so is, so far as it can be, affirmed 
by the opinion of an accomplished statesman, 
Mr. Forsyth, and of a President of great weight 
of character and authority in this country, un- 
doubtedly. It has all the sanction to which it is 
entitled from the character of those two states- 
men. Nay, more, sir, although it is not authority 
which you might quote, perhaps, in a contest with 
a foreign Power, it is one which may be used 
when we are discussing the conduct of our own ; 
Government in their own vindication. They have 
not gone beyond their predecessors. They have 
not gone so far as their predecessors. This Ex- 
ecutive has ordered the forces of the United 
States to repel the invasion of these fillibusters in 
the harbor of San Juan, within the territorial 
sovereignty of Nicaragua; but they have not 
avowed their right for that purpose to march an 
army into the heart of Nicaragua, as Mr. Forsyth 
did in the communication to which I have referred, 
in relation to Mexico. 

I believe I stated before that there was no such 
stipulation in the treaty of 1831 as that of the 
irufity of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which required us 
iiot only to guard against the irruption of our 
Indians into Mexico, but also to exact compen- 
sation for damages from them. But all treaties of 
peace and amity provide tiiat there shall be true 
and sincere friendship, and inviolate and univer- 
sal peace between the Governments which are j 
parties to such an instrument, and between all ' 
their citizens respectively. This is an avowal of 
the duty of all nations not engaged in war, to re- | 
frain themselves, and restrain their citizens from i 
doing injury, each to the other, and would seem 
to include such a stipulation as that of the treaty ; 
of 1831.* 

*£n the speocli as reported in tlic Daily Globe, Mr. [ 
Te-irck said that he tliought there was no special provis- 
ion in the treaty of 1831 requiring the United States to keep 
tlieir Indians from incursions into Me.xico. But subse- [ 
queiit examination showed tliis to be an error, and (lie cor- 
riciion is here made accordingly. 



I shall not detain the Senate much longer, but 
I wish to say a few words in regard to tommo- 
dore Paulding. I have heard a great deal said of 
the harshness with which he executed this duty. 
One gentleman .spoke of his having boasted of the 
gallantry of his sailors and marines. That hap- 
pens to be a mistake. I have looked at his letters 
and I do not see any boast of their gallantry; but 
he praises their good order and discipline, which, 
considering that the debarkation Was made in a 
turbulent sea, and at considerable peril, is I think 
not at all immodest. I saw no language disre- 
spectful to General Walker. He considers him 
as most people do in our country, I apprehend, 
as a lav/less man, who is disregarding the \ii\vs of 
nations, who is disposed to carry ruin and havoc 
into the territory of Nicaragua, in order that he 
may establi.sh himself there on the basis of a mil- 
itary despotism — that is what he means by a gov- 
ernment "based on military principles;" but L 
see no language of Commodore Paulding to him 
which could be considered disgraceful to that of- 
ficer. We do not wish our officers when execu- 
ting a stern duty to speak with bated breath, and 
accompany the act by apologetic flourishes. We 
want them to speak like men, like officers; to speak 
whatever is to be said, plainly, frankly, without 
apology and unnecessary qualification. That is 
what Commodore Paulding has done, and I think 
he executed this ofilce as wisely and as well as it 
could have been done. He organized a force suf- 
ficient to overcome all opposition. That was a 
mercy to these people, for if he had gone with 
a small force there would have been opposition 
and bloodshed. I see no barbarity, nothing 
inliicted which authorizes gentlemen to speak in 
the extremely harsh terms in which some have 
censured him. For my part, I believe him to be 
a sensible man, a gallant officer. I believe if he 
had no specific orders from the Government to do 
precisely what he has done, that the orders whicli 
Lieutenant Almy had were, at all events in tlieir 
spirit and essence, sufficient to justify him in the 
step which he took. I think, in taking that step, 
he has relieved the country from a great respons- 
ibility; he has relieved Nicaragua from the hor- 
rors of an abominable war; and he has vindicated 
the good faith of the Government of th.e United 
States, which was bound to put down such a law- 
less expedition as this. If the President had not 
given him authority, the President might have 
given him the authority, as I think I have shown; 
and 1 will consider that what ought to have been 
done has been done; and though I am not willing 
to vote a medal to Commodore Paulding for this 
service, because it is not the sort of service for 



15 



which I think medals ought to be voted, he has 
my thanks, and the thanks of the great mass of 
the people. There are some few places where he 
may be condemned, where Walker has become 
popular and received sympathy; but everywhere 
else the people of this country will approve and 
sanction and applaud the conduct of Commodore 
Paulding. I trust they will do so. 

I would now say a word aa to another officer 
who has been the subject of remark. I should 
say nothing about him, were it not for the fact 
that he is a constituent of mine, as honest and true 
a sailor as ever stepped on the deck — a perfectly 
brave and fearless man, as I know. I have known 
him for many years. He has been thirty-three 
years in the Navy, without the slightest reproach 
on his character or conduct as an officer. He is 
n conscientious man, not as ready, perhaps, to 
assume responsibility as some others. I mean 
Captain Chalard. He was without any other in- 
structions than the circular which was dispatched 
to our attorneys and collectors of customs, and 
copies of which were furnished to the individual 
officers commanding the different ships on that 
station. That was all he had. He naturally 
enough, not having more specific instructions than 
those contained in that circular, doubted his au- 
thority to stop this vessel as she was coming in, 
especially as his suspicions were not awakened 
as to her being engaged in a ho'stile enterprise. 

I beg leave to say further, though he has been 
reproached for exhibiting ill-temper by certain 
notes he wrote to Walker, that I think, when the 
circumstances are explained, it will be perceived 
llial he is not liable to that charge. It is a fact 
that he had put up, some weeks before, a tar- 
get in the neighborhood of the place of Walker's 
camp. Here he was in the habit of exercising 
his crew in boat-practice with the howitzers; and 
the boat-practice of which Walker conjplained, was 
nothingbutacontinuanceof what had being going 
on for weeks before. So in regard to his request 
to move his camp a little out of the way, so that, in 
firing to bring a vessel to, he might do no damage. 
A shot thrown from his vessel, I understand, must 



pass over this sand-spit, and he wished to notify 
Walker in time, that possibly, in throwing shot 
over there to bring a vessel to, it might do dam- 
age. These are the only instances of brutality 
and meanness I have been able to perceive in 
the correspondence. I trust he will be excused 
for not assuming the responsibility of bringing 
the Fashion to, when unsuspicious of her char# 
acter, and not expressly required to search all 
vessels before allowing them to run >ip to the 
wharf. 

Now, sir, I will only say in conclusion, that 
while I desire to see the people of this country, 
individually and collectively, free, happy, and 
prosperous, loyal to the Constitution, and oi^e- 
dient to the law, watching the Government with a 
sober vigilance — not with a partisan spite, not 
with an illiberal suspicion, but with a sober vigi- 
lance — and correcting them, if they go astray, 
with the moderation of wisdom, I desire to see 
the Government also sensitive to our national 
honor, and vigilant and Arm in the protection of 
our national rights. I desire to see them just and 
firm, but courteous, towards the great Powers; 
and at the same time, not only just, but forbear- 
ing and generous to the weaker Powers, helping 
them in their debility, assisting them in their tot- 
tering steps in the progress of freedom and civili- 
zation. While they are doing all this, I want to 
see them crushing, with broad and mighty hand, 
the turbulent spirits in our midst, who regard no 
law, who set at naught the Constitution, who 
deride the obligations of international rules, who 
defy the enactments passed by you to enforce your 
national obligations, and who, looking only to 
personal victory, and to personal triumph and to 
personal aggrandizement, are willing to violgte 
your law, the laws of nations, and the peace of 
another country; to trample down its independ- 
ence, and to establish a Governm.ent " based on 
military principles," which shall be restrained by 
no representative legislature, by no constitutional 
responsibility, but which shall be a usurped des- 
potism, directed for the benefit of one man or a 
few men. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



009 595 314 1 * 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




009 595 314 1 



Hollingier 

pH 83 

Mitt Run F0>2193 



